Just who and what the hell are we fighting here, Donald?

The fact, however, is that there was not an attack on Baghdad. There was an attack on the Iraqi regime, and it was as precise as ever before in the history of warfare. The care that went into the targeting is just breathtaking. And the battle damage assessments and the people from the ground that we talked to are telling us that, to a great extent in Baghdad, people are going about their business, because they are so impressed with the precision of those targeting and those bombs and those attacks, that they feel that the coalition forces are doing it in the best possible way.
It looks like it's a bombing of a city, but it isn't. It is a bombing of military targets, very precisely, and regime targets, and the television image is belied by what's seen on the ground.

Well shit, Donald, we can only go by what we see on the TV, and if the TV cameras don't actually go into the city to show you what's happening we're going to assume the city itself is being attacked. And what's this "there was not an attack on Baghdad" stuff? That sounds suspiciously like that Frenchman Baudrillard and his crack about how the first Gulf War didn't take place. Postmodernism is taking over the Coalition! The centre cannot hold!

posted by James Russell | 12:01 PM